Literature DB >> 11506097

A double-blind, randomized comparison of i.v. lorazepam versus midazolam for sedation of ICU patients via a pharmacologic model.

J Barr1, K Zomorodi, E J Bertaccini, S L Shafer, E Geller.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Benzodiazepines, such as lorazepam and midazolam, are frequently administered to surgical intensive care unit (ICU) patients for postoperative sedation. To date, the pharmacology of lorazepam in critically ill patients has not been described. The aim of the current study was to characterize and compare the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of lorazepam and midazolam administered as continuous intravenous infusions for postoperative sedation of surgical ICU patients.
METHODS: With Institutional Review Board approval, 24 consenting adult surgical patients were given either lorazepam or midazolam in a double-blind fashion (together with either intravenous fentanyl or epidural morphine for analgesia) through target-controlled intravenous infusions titrated to maintain a moderate level of sedation for 12-72 h postoperatively. Moderate sedation was defined as a Ramsay Sedation Scale score of 3 or 4. Sedation scores were measured, together with benzodiazepine plasma concentrations. Population pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic parameters were estimated using nonlinear mixed-effects modeling.
RESULTS: A two-compartment model best described the pharmacokinetics of both lorazepam and midazolam. The pharmacodynamic model predicted depth of sedation for both midazolam and lorazepam with 76% accuracy. The estimated sedative potency of lorazepam was twice that of midazolam. The predicted C50,ss (plasma benzodiazepine concentrations where P(Sedation > or = ss) = 50%) values for midazolam (sedation score [SS] > or = n, where n = a Ramsay Sedation Score of 2, 3, ... 6) were 68, 101, 208, 304, and 375 ng/ml. The corresponding predicted C50,ss values for lorazepam were 34, 51, 104, 152, and 188 ng/ml, respectively. Age, fentanyl administration, and the resolving effects of surgery and anesthesia were significant covariates of benzodiazepine sedation. The relative amnestic potency of lorazepam to midazolam was 4 (observed). The predicted emergence times from sedation after a 72-h benzodiazepine infusion for light (SS = 3) and deep (SS = 5) sedation in a typical patient were 3.6 and 14.9 h for midazolam infusions and 11.9 and 31.1 h for lorazepam infusions, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: The pharmacology of intravenous infusions of lorazepam differs significantly from that of midazolam in critically ill patients. This results in significant delays in emergence from sedation with lorazepam as compared with midazolam when administered for ICU sedation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11506097     DOI: 10.1097/00000542-200108000-00007

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Anesthesiology        ISSN: 0003-3022            Impact factor:   7.892


  30 in total

1.  Validity and reliability of the DDS for severity of delirium in the ICU.

Authors:  Hilke Otter; Jörg Martin; Katrin Bäsell; Christian von Heymann; Ortrud Vargas Hein; Patricia Böllert; Pattariya Jänsch; Ina Behnisch; Klaus-Dieter Wernecke; Wolfgang Konertz; Stefan Loening; Jens-Uwe Blohmer; Claudia Spies
Journal:  Neurocrit Care       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 3.210

2.  Population pharmacodynamic modelling of lorazepam- and midazolam-induced sedation upon long-term continuous infusion in critically ill patients.

Authors:  Eleonora L Swart; Klaas P Zuideveld; Joost de Jongh; Meindert Danhof; Lambertus G Thijs; Robert M J Strack van Schijndel
Journal:  Eur J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2006-01-20       Impact factor: 2.953

3.  Reduced narcotic and sedative utilization in a NICU after implementation of pain management guidelines.

Authors:  D Rana; B Bellflower; J Sahni; A J Kaplan; N T Owens; E L Arrindell; A J Talati; R Dhanireddy
Journal:  J Perinatol       Date:  2017-06-15       Impact factor: 2.521

4.  Treatment of Alcohol Withdrawal Syndrome with and without Dexmedetomidine.

Authors:  Muna Beg; Sara Fisher; Dana Siu; Sudhir Rajan; Lawrence Troxell; Vincent X Liu
Journal:  Perm J       Date:  2016

Review 5.  Sedation for critically ill or injured adults in the intensive care unit: a shifting paradigm.

Authors:  Derek J Roberts; Babar Haroon; Richard I Hall
Journal:  Drugs       Date:  2012-10-01       Impact factor: 9.546

Review 6.  Clinical Pharmacology Studies in Critically Ill Children.

Authors:  Nilay Thakkar; Sara Salerno; Christoph P Hornik; Daniel Gonzalez
Journal:  Pharm Res       Date:  2016-09-01       Impact factor: 4.200

7.  Sedative Plasma Concentrations and Delirium Risk in Critical Illness.

Authors:  Joanna L Stollings; Jennifer L Thompson; Benjamin A Ferrell; Mika Scheinin; Grant R Wilkinson; Christopher G Hughes; Ayumi K Shintani; E Wesley Ely; Timothy D Girard; Pratik P Pandharipande; Mayur B Patel
Journal:  Ann Pharmacother       Date:  2018-01-24       Impact factor: 3.154

8.  Pharmacokinetics of intravenous lorazepam in pediatric patients with and without status epilepticus.

Authors:  James M Chamberlain; Edmund V Capparelli; Kathleen M Brown; Cheryl W Vance; Kathleen Lillis; Prashant Mahajan; Richard Lichenstein; Rachel M Stanley; Colleen O Davis; Stephen Gordon; Jill M Baren; John N van den Anker
Journal:  J Pediatr       Date:  2011-11-01       Impact factor: 4.406

Review 9.  [Psychopharmacological treatment in the pre-clinical emergency medicine].

Authors:  F-G Pajonk; B Fleiter
Journal:  Anaesthesist       Date:  2003-07-10       Impact factor: 1.041

Review 10.  The incidence of sub-optimal sedation in the ICU: a systematic review.

Authors:  Daniel L Jackson; Clare W Proudfoot; Kimberley F Cann; Tim S Walsh
Journal:  Crit Care       Date:  2009-12-16       Impact factor: 9.097

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.